How to buy from Foran

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool actually contains — procedural guidance on ordering, fees, payment, top-up, cashback, and refunds — which tells the agent this is static explanatory content rather than live account data. It does not explicitly say the output is non-personalized reference text, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by a topic inventory and a usage sentence; every element earns its place. The topic list is dense and comma-heavy, but for a reference tool that inventory is the most valuable part.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only reference tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is routing versus the sibling foran_about and foran_policy tools, which an agent must guess at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource ('Practical guide to buying from Foran Delivery') and enumerates the exact topics it covers (one-store rule, delivery charges, minimum order, payment, Foran Money, cashback, custom orders, cancellation/refunds). That is far more specific than a title restatement. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as foran_about and foran_policy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use it whenever a customer asks how Foran works or how to order' gives a clear triggering condition. There are no exclusions, so an agent facing a general 'tell me about Foran' question cannot tell whether this or foran_about is the right call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.